GENE HARRIS TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
HARRIS TRAVEL SERVICE, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Florida appellate court affirmed an injunction prohibiting Gene Harris Travel Service from using "Harris" in its trade name, finding that name similarity caused customer confusion likely to harm the plaintiff's business.
A competitor's use of a similar mark may be enjoined if it is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the origin of goods or services.
[1] A competitor's use of a similar mark in the same industry may be enjoined if it is likely to cause confusion or mistake as to the origin of goods or services.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“competitor's use of a similar mark may be abrogated if it is likely, when applied to the goods in question, to cause confusion or mistake”
Court cited Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Standard Oil Co. for the principle that similar marks causing confusion may be enjoined.
Harris Travel Service, Inc. sued Gene Harris Travel Service, Inc. to prevent the defendant from using the word "Harris" as part of its trade name in c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Customer Confusion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is from a final judgment entered in an action brought by Harris Travel Service, Inc. which enjoins the principal defendant, Gene Harris Travel Service, Inc.,1 from utilizing the word “Harris” as part of defendant’s trade name in connection with any travel related services. The court’s finding, that the name similarities caused customer confusion which could harm plaintiff’s business and reputation, is supported by competent substantial evidence. See Pure Foods, Inc. v. Minute Maid Corp., 214 F. 2d 792 (5th Cir.) (defendant’s use of words “Minute Made” caused confusion and mistake on part of purchaser as to origin of defendant’s product), cert. denied, 348 U.S. 888, 75 S.Ct. 208, 99 L.Ed. 697 (1954). See also Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Standard Oil Co., 135 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961) (competitor’s use of a similar mark may be abrogated if it is likely, when applied to the goods in question, to cause confusion or mistake), cert. denied, 142 So. 2d 731 (Fla.1962).
We do not reach the issue of plaintiffs entitlement to fees under chapter 501, Florida Statutes (1983) since the issue was not decided by the trial court.
Affirmed.
. Named as codefendants were Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company and Bell South Advertising and Publishing Corporation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pure Foods, Inc. v. Minute Maid Corp., 214 F.2d 792 (5th Cir. 1954)
- Pure Foods, Inc. v. Minute Maid Corp., 348 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1954)
- Milco Undergarment Co., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 348 U.S. 888 (U.S. 1954)
- Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Standard OIL Co., 135 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)
- Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp. v. Standard OIL Co., 142 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1962)